The Congressional UAP Hearings Debrief

With respect, pretty much all the content in the above post (#79, 07/10/23) can be described as pseudoscience or extraordinary and unverified claims.

I'm not sure I see any connection at all to the Congressional UAP hearings debrief.
The debrief document has it as "anonymous site" written in a strange code. @REMEMBEREDLANGUAGES points out that the same information was previously published in two English attributed papers. I think that's useful to know.
 
"Evolution of Life Forms in Our Universe"
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/73bb/622ee28b905376b4f48dc571138ccdaf6153.pdf

The last is at least entertaining- until you realise that some people might take it seriously.

Not much to fear in that regard, JMP has Google-based Impact Factor: 0.86 according to https://www.scirp.org/journal/journalarticles.aspx?journalid=172
Not sure what that impact factor exactly means, but if it's closely aligned to a normal impact factor it implies not many people are giving that paper any credibility at all.
I presume it's a vanity journal.
 
With respect, pretty much all the content in the above post (#79, 07/10/23) can be described as pseudoscience or extraordinary and unverified claims.

I'm not sure I see any connection at all to the Congressional UAP hearings debrief.

The Robert Baker whose work is linked to appears to be a purveyor of pseudoscience,
his work includes "Rollout Theory of the Universe",
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351705985_Rollout_Theory_of_Universe
"Detection and Determination of the Variation of the Speed of Time",
http://drrobertbaker.com/docs/J M P 3-23-21.pdf and
"Evolution of Life Forms in Our Universe"
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/73bb/622ee28b905376b4f48dc571138ccdaf6153.pdf

The last is at least entertaining- until you realise that some people might take it seriously.
The last mentioned, which is full of entertaining woo (thanks for that) gives the company affiliation of Baker, the lead author, as "Gravwave LLC", so it sounds as if he hopes to make a buck out of the gravitational wave business.
 
it sounds as if he hopes to make a buck out of the gravitational wave business.
Unless I'm very much out of date-
-the size of the equipment needed to detect gravity waves, and the magnitude of events required to generate detectable gravity waves, might make Robert Baker's plans for a gravity wave communications system somewhat impractical.

The debrief document has it as "anonymous site" written in a strange code. @REMEMBEREDLANGUAGES points out that the same information was previously published in two English attributed papers. I think that's useful to know.
Ah, thank you for the context.

The whole "Forgotten Languages" site is a poor person's Voynich manuscript (which it mentions IIRC); an attempt to make the credulous believe that the site owner has great wisdom. It's full of bunk:
https://forgottenlanguages-full.for...6/the-art-of-jamming-gravitational-waves.html

I can't think of a genuine code which would need to represent a key part of its subject matter in clear
(HFGW, "high-frequency gravity waves").

I feared "REMEMBEREDLANGUAGES" was merely propagating "Forgotten Languages" nonsense- my apologies to them.
Maybe the name thing triggered me.

The AATIP list has a significant proportion of papers from questionable sources as we all know.
Robert Baker's paper "High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications" (PDF attached) was one of them.

Another of Baker's papers, "EXOPLANET APPLICATIONS OF HIGH-FREQUENCY GRAVITATIONAL WAVES" is a hoot, so I've attached that as well.

...Ah; just found his Wikipedia page, he died in January.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._L._Baker_Jr.
 

Attachments

The last mentioned, which is full of entertaining woo (thanks for that) gives the company affiliation of Baker, the lead author, as "Gravwave LLC", so it sounds as if he hopes to make a buck out of the gravitational wave business.
I'm sorry, i've don't think i've got halfway through the first page of the abstract, and I'm deafening myself with eye-rolling....

External Quote:
Here we define a humanoid as a cyborg self-controlled by an electronic artificial brain that has “freewill”. The major law for all life forms resident in our Universe be they amoebas, fungus, bugs, or bunnies, human or non-human humanoids is survival of the fittest. We speculate that humans are not the only life form that has been, is, or will be present in our Universe—but due to the necessity of survival, no matter how they started out, inevitably their most probable destiny is to wind up as spheres of living-thinking, mental material orbiting a star or galaxy.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/73bb/622ee28b905376b4f48dc571138ccdaf6153.pdf

Bolding mine, opinion mine: this comment is almost as vacant as the Universe trying to be populated by this article. I think I've got more paint to watch drying...
 
With respect, pretty much all the content in the above post (#79, 07/10/23) can be described as pseudoscience or extraordinary and unverified claims.

I'm not sure I see any connection at all to the Congressional UAP hearings debrief.

The Robert Baker whose work is linked to appears to be a purveyor of pseudoscience,
his work includes "Rollout Theory of the Universe",
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351705985_Rollout_Theory_of_Universe
"Detection and Determination of the Variation of the Speed of Time",
http://drrobertbaker.com/docs/J M P 3-23-21.pdf and
"Evolution of Life Forms in Our Universe"
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/73bb/622ee28b905376b4f48dc571138ccdaf6153.pdf

The last is at least entertaining- until you realise that some people might take it seriously.
I am pointing out that they had no advanced knowledge as alleged by the "debrief" document. The papers were already out years before that.
 
With respect, pretty much all the content in the above post (#79, 07/10/23) can be described as pseudoscience or extraordinary and unverified claims.

I'm not sure I see any connection at all to the Congressional UAP hearings debrief.

The Robert Baker whose work is linked to appears to be a purveyor of pseudoscience,
his work includes "Rollout Theory of the Universe",
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351705985_Rollout_Theory_of_Universe
"Detection and Determination of the Variation of the Speed of Time",
http://drrobertbaker.com/docs/J M P 3-23-21.pdf and
"Evolution of Life Forms in Our Universe"
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/73bb/622ee28b905376b4f48dc571138ccdaf6153.pdf

The last is at least entertaining- until you realise that some people might take it seriously.

I think post #79 and subsequent discussion of it are more than a bit off-Topic.
 
I think post #79 and subsequent discussion of it are more than a bit off-Topic.
That post starts with a screenshot of an item in the topical document, and adds well-sourced evidence relating to it. It's a good example of an on-topic post, of a quality that many other posts on Metabunk don't meet.
 
That post starts with a screenshot of an item in the topical document, and adds well-sourced evidence relating to it. It's a good example of an on-topic post, of a quality that many other posts on Metabunk don't meet.

I don't see how that document is "topical" - it looks like it predates the congressional UAP hearings by 15 years, it's certainly not a debrief thereof.
 
I don't see how that document is "topical" - it looks like it predates the congressional UAP hearings by 15 years, it's certainly not a debrief thereof.
Thread title is confusing and the topical document is misnomered (debrief).This thread is about a document given to congress known as “debrief”. See the first post. My post (#79) is a screenshot from that document. The forgotten languages site appears several times. The debrief document claims the fl site had knowledge of UFOs and hfgw before it was in the public knowledge.I have provided the source of the encoded text on fl. Papers published many years before.
 
Last edited:
My post (#79) is a screenshot from that document. The forgotten languages site appears several times.
Yes, I misunderstood your post #79, apologies
t.jpg


But like much of the rest of material referred to in the "debriefing document" (which I sincerely hope was only a small part of any briefing or debriefing, and delivered in context, if used at all) the Forgotten Languages site is complete bunk.
https://forgottenlanguages-full.for...6/the-art-of-jamming-gravitational-waves.html

Some of the "decrypted" text reads,

External Quote:
the main hindrance in the design of advanced Mil-Orbs and PSVs came not from the propulsion system; gravity has been finally tamed and you can see military crafts silently hovering and moving all over the intel battle field
and

External Quote:
PSV-MilOrb-2035 Presence was extensively tested in the Fort Worth and Arlington test areas in 2008. We tested new ways to interfere its GNC and OBC subsystems by chasing the vehicle with two F-16 fitted with Li-Baker HFGW jammers. We concluded there is no need to actually detect a covert gravitational wave communication link prior to its jamming.
I doubt, very, very much, that "Li-Baker High Frequency Gravity Wave Jammers" existed outside of the imaginations of the late Robert Baker, his wife (who collaborated with him) and possibly a Mr Fangyu Li.

External Quote:
Ten different HFGW detectors (or receivers) have been proposed since 1978... ...but the proposed Li-Baker detector shows the most promise.
PDF, High Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications (Robert Baker, 2010, as posted #84).

In reality, the first experimental evidence of gravity waves was made in 2015 by the LIGO / Virgo collaborations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves

I'm not a physicist or engineer, but I'm pretty sure that no F-16 has flown with a pair of gravity wave "jammers", not least because they don't exist.

It must be questionable whether a purely imaginary device can be said to be "in the public domain", except for purposes of an author's copyright.

If the "debriefing [or briefing] document" is in any way authentic, let's hope, in the name of all that's sane, it was presented in a context such as "...and this document was sent to Mr Grusch by one of his informants" or something like that.
 
But like much of the rest of material referred to in the "debriefing document" (which I sincerely hope was only a small part of any briefing or debriefing, and delivered in context, if used at all) the Forgotten Languages site is complete bunk.
Yes. Which is why bringing it up on Metabunk is a good idea.
 
You're saying the OP is OT. Gotcha.
Do you expect me to remember the start of page 1 as we begin page 3 of a thread? Criminey, then the thread is horribly mistitled.
There's also no mention of "forbiddenlanguages" before post #79, there was nothing connecting to anything which came before. @MapperGuy noticed the abrupt change too, I'm not alone. So, precisely what single claim of evidence is this thread about, if you think it's worth continuing hence?
 
Do you expect me to remember the start of page 1 as we begin page 3 of a thread? Criminey, then the thread is horribly mistitled.
When you sling claims of posts being offtopic, yes. No shame in looking it up.
There's also no mention of "forbiddenlanguages" before post #79, there was nothing connecting to anything which came before.
Yes, the screenshot at the top of the post originated with the titular document, as was obvious from the formatting. Again, easy to check before slinging a rude accusation.
 
When you sling claims of posts being offtopic, yes. No shame in looking it up.

Yes, the screenshot at the top of the post originated with the titular document, as was obvious from the formatting. Again, easy to check before slinging a rude accusation.

The slinging of the accusation wasn't mine, it was @MapperGuy's. I was merely supporting him. The connection wasn't clear enough. The only connection we have here on page 3 is the thread title. But you're making me repeat myself, which is a bit rude.
 
Yes, I misunderstood your post #79, apologiesView attachment 63372

But like much of the rest of material referred to in the "debriefing document" (which I sincerely hope was only a small part of any briefing or debriefing, and delivered in context, if used at all) the Forgotten Languages site is complete bunk.
https://forgottenlanguages-full.for...6/the-art-of-jamming-gravitational-waves.html

Some of the "decrypted" text reads,

External Quote:
the main hindrance in the design of advanced Mil-Orbs and PSVs came not from the propulsion system; gravity has been finally tamed and you can see military crafts silently hovering and moving all over the intel battle field
and

External Quote:
PSV-MilOrb-2035 Presence was extensively tested in the Fort Worth and Arlington test areas in 2008. We tested new ways to interfere its GNC and OBC subsystems by chasing the vehicle with two F-16 fitted with Li-Baker HFGW jammers. We concluded there is no need to actually detect a covert gravitational wave communication link prior to its jamming.
I doubt, very, very much, that "Li-Baker High Frequency Gravity Wave Jammers" existed outside of the imaginations of the late Robert Baker, his wife (who collaborated with him) and possibly a Mr Fangyu Li.

External Quote:
Ten different HFGW detectors (or receivers) have been proposed since 1978... ...but the proposed Li-Baker detector shows the most promise.
PDF, High Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications (Robert Baker, 2010, as posted #84).

In reality, the first experimental evidence of gravity waves was made in 2015 by the LIGO / Virgo collaborations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves

I'm not a physicist or engineer, but I'm pretty sure that no F-16 has flown with a pair of gravity wave "jammers", not least because they don't exist.

It must be questionable whether a purely imaginary device can be said to be "in the public domain", except for purposes of an author's copyright.

If the "debriefing [or briefing] document" is in any way authentic, let's hope, in the name of all that's sane, it was presented in a context such as "...and this document was sent to Mr Grusch by one of his informants" or something like that.
Those quoted sections you have are from the english portion of the page, not the decrypted text.

The debrief document is not from Grusch as far as I know.

https://uapmax.com/shellenberger-debrief-congress/

"FROM SHELLENBERGER: THIS IS A TIMELINE OF PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABOUT UAPS CREATED FOR THE GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE OF THE U.S. CONGRESS BY AN ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUAL WHO GAVE IT TO PUBLIC. WE SHARE THIS DOCUMENT IN SERVICE OF DISCLOSURE AND HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO VERIFY ANY OF THE INFORMATION IN IT."

The document is absurd, and this thread here on a debunking website is for examining it.

"This is a thread for examining the debrief document that was provided to Congress people prior to The House Oversight Committee hearing on UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena)/UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) on July 26. Find it here:https://pdfhost.io/v/gR8lAdgVd_Uap_Timeline_Prepared_By_Another

All external content below is from this PDF unless otherwise noted.

The main thread for the hearings can be found here, though it is over 20 pages as of this writing and I envisioned a place to discuss just the document that I believe was giving to members prior to the hearing.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/

My first thought was how embarrassing it appeared, even with a quick glance. It seems to be a collection of UFO stories arranged in somewhat chronological order. It looks like the congress persons, or their staffers could skim through this thing and get little paraphrased blurbs about everything from Roswell to GOFAST."

- Norcal Dave, the first post on this thread

Metabunk is not a general discussion forum for speculative theories. It's about finding claims of evidence that are wrong, and then debunking them.
-Mick West

We are trapped in a loop that can be exited by reading the thread we are commenting on.
 
Last edited:
Re. the "Forbidden Languages" discussion,
in fairness to @FatPhil and @MapperGuy (and @REMEMBEREDLANGUAGES) it was initially "my bad" in post #80.
I commented on post #79 without grasping the context, which @Mendel clarified.

But, like some of the other incidents/ materials referred to in the debrief document (the thread subject) I don't think there can be any doubt that the Forgotten Languages (FL) website is utter bunk.
The "The Art of Jamming Gravitational Waves Communications Systems: Taming those who tamed gravity" section
https://forgottenlanguages-full.for...6/the-art-of-jamming-gravitational-waves.html
is reliant on the reader believing that a number of fantasy technologies (gravity control, military "orbs") exist.

The "encrypted" sections contain identifiable acronyms (HFGW) that are specific to the author's topic; real codes don't do that- it indicates the subject of the coded message, doing part of the SIGINT/ codebreaker's work for them.
E.g., in years gone by, if you were intercepting UK military communications and had limited decryption resources, you might prioritise messages with "AAC" in clear (Army Air Corps: helicopters) over messages with "ACC" (Army Catering Corps).
The Forgotten Languages author uses acronyms (whose meanings are stated in-article) "in clear" in the "encoded" sections- they are teasers. It's an exercise in semiotics- "This [fictitious] technology is so important we can only discuss it in code".

Someone's put quite a bit of work into the FL website, but like the elaborate materials put online by Malcolm Bendall
Mr. Bendall's Plasmiod energy system
...it's not so much a contribution to scientific understanding as, arguably, a piece of outsider art.

Perhaps the real issue (getting back on topic after the diversion I mistakenly caused) is, was the "debrief document" actually supplied to Congress members, and if so, in what context?
Were they explicitly made aware that many of the cases described in the document, and some of the "sources" mentioned (e.g. the FL site) are not reconcilable with reality?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I misunderstood your post #79, apologiesView attachment 63372

But like much of the rest of material referred to in the "debriefing document" (which I sincerely hope was only a small part of any briefing or debriefing, and delivered in context, if used at all) the Forgotten Languages site is complete bunk.
https://forgottenlanguages-full.for...6/the-art-of-jamming-gravitational-waves.html

Some of the "decrypted" text reads,

External Quote:
the main hindrance in the design of advanced Mil-Orbs and PSVs came not from the propulsion system; gravity has been finally tamed and you can see military crafts silently hovering and moving all over the intel battle field
and

External Quote:
PSV-MilOrb-2035 Presence was extensively tested in the Fort Worth and Arlington test areas in 2008. We tested new ways to interfere its GNC and OBC subsystems by chasing the vehicle with two F-16 fitted with Li-Baker HFGW jammers. We concluded there is no need to actually detect a covert gravitational wave communication link prior to its jamming.
I doubt, very, very much, that "Li-Baker High Frequency Gravity Wave Jammers" existed outside of the imaginations of the late Robert Baker, his wife (who collaborated with him) and possibly a Mr Fangyu Li.

External Quote:
Ten different HFGW detectors (or receivers) have been proposed since 1978... ...but the proposed Li-Baker detector shows the most promise.
PDF, High Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications (Robert Baker, 2010, as posted #84).

In reality, the first experimental evidence of gravity waves was made in 2015 by the LIGO / Virgo collaborations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves

I'm not a physicist or engineer, but I'm pretty sure that no F-16 has flown with a pair of gravity wave "jammers", not least because they don't exist.

It must be questionable whether a purely imaginary device can be said to be "in the public domain", except for purposes of an author's copyright.

If the "debriefing [or briefing] document" is in any way authentic, let's hope, in the name of all that's sane, it was presented in a context such as "...and this document was sent to Mr Grusch by one of his informants" or something like that.
Sorry for starting such a kerfuffle.

Did some searching for High Frequency Gravity Waves and found an interesting document from JASON, dated October 2008. https://irp.fas.org › agency › dod › jason › gravwaves.pdf

Abstract
JASON was asked by staff at the National MASINT Committee ofODNI to evaluate the scientific, technological, and national securitysignificance of high frequency gravitational waves (HFGW). Our mainconclusions are that the proposed applications of the science of HFGWare fundamentally wrong; that there can be no security threat; andthat independent scientific and technical vetting of such hypotheticalthreats is generally necessary. We conclude that previous analysis ofthe Li-Baker detector concept is incorrect by many orders of magnitude; and that the following are infeasible in the foreseeable future:detection of the natural “relic” HFGW, which are reliably predictedto exist; or detection of artificial sources of HFGW. No foreign threatin HFGW is credible, including: Communication by means of HFGW;Object detection or imaging (by HFGW radar or tomography); Vehicle propulsion by HFGW; or any other practical use of HFGW. Forthe relatively weak fields in the lab, on the Earth, or indeed in the solar system (far from the cutting-edge science of black holes of the BigBang), the general theory of relativity and its existing experimentalbasis are complete, accurate and reliable


In other words, far far too much energy required for us to do anything with gravity waves other than observe those produced naturally.

For those who have never heard of the JASON's check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
They are retired senior scientists who have worked on all sorts of government programs and projects, including classified ones, and like to continue putting their knowledge and experience to use.

There have been various patents filed for devices to do stuff with gravity waves, but filing a patent and actually building such a device can be quite different things.
 
Did some searching for High Frequency Gravity Waves and found an interesting document from JASON, dated October 2008. https://irp.fas.org › agency › dod › jason › gravwaves.pdf

Excellent find- I think that wraps up our brief excursion down Forgotten Languages lane!
The JASON paper MapperGuy links to is an absolute gem.
Essentially it makes clear that the claims of Robert Baker and Mr Li are nonsense:

External Quote:
Therefore these proposals belong to the realm of pseudo-science, not science
This of course means that the Forgotten Languages website content is also nonsense (and written to deceive).

One of several practical observations which I liked (my emphasis added)
External Quote:
...one would... have to wait 106 ages of the universe (beyond the funding horizon of any federal agency)... to obtain one photon per year.
 
One of several practical observations which I liked (my emphasis added)
External Quote:
...one would... have to wait 106 ages of the universe (beyond the funding horizon of any federal agency)... to obtain one photon per year.
And that's 10[sup]6[/sup], in case anyone's wondering.
 
Re. the "Forbidden Languages" discussion,
in fairness to @FatPhil and @MapperGuy (and @REMEMBEREDLANGUAGES) it was initially "my bad" in post #80.
I commented on post #79 without grasping the context, which @Mendel clarified.

But, like some of the other incidents/ materials referred to in the debrief document (the thread subject) I don't think there can be any doubt that the Forgotten Languages (FL) website is utter bunk.
The "The Art of Jamming Gravitational Waves Communications Systems: Taming those who tamed gravity" section
https://forgottenlanguages-full.for...6/the-art-of-jamming-gravitational-waves.html
is reliant on the reader believing that a number of fantasy technologies (gravity control, military "orbs") exist.

The "encrypted" sections contain identifiable acronyms (HFGW) that are specific to the author's topic; real codes don't do that- it indicates the subject of the coded message, doing part of the SIGINT/ codebreaker's work for them.
E.g., in years gone by, if you were intercepting UK military communications and had limited decryption resources, you might prioritise messages with "AAC" in clear (Army Air Corps: helicopters) over messages with "ACC" (Army Catering Corps).
The Forgotten Languages author uses acronyms (whose meanings are stated in-article) "in clear" in the "encoded" sections- they are teasers. It's an exercise in semiotics- "This [fictitious] technology is so important we can only discuss it in code".

Someone's put quite a bit of work into the FL website, but like the elaborate materials put online by Malcolm Bendall

...it's not so much a contribution to scientific understanding as, arguably, a piece of outsider art.

Perhaps the real issue (getting back on topic after the diversion I mistakenly caused) is, was the "debrief document" actually supplied to Congress members, and if so, in what context?
Were they explicitly made aware that many of the cases described in the document, and some of the "sources" mentioned (e.g. the FL site) are not reconcilable with reality?
To answer your later question, yes, it was supplied to *a* Congress member who may have presented it/its existence to actual Congressional proceedings afterwards. From what we know the entire time it was messaged, not the issues with it, but rather just repackaged forms of "We cannot assess its validity".

Something curious with this I saw little mention of here or elsewhere, is all the off-Public reporting of it coming form an "anonymous" and/or "unidentified" party, including from Shallenberger himself. Yet, on the Public post itself, it's heavily insinuated that *they* are the ones that made the report.

Screenshot (2518).png
Screenshot (2517).png
 
To answer your later question, yes, it was supplied to *a* Congress member who may have presented it/its existence to actual Congressional proceedings afterwards
Thank you for your reply!

Do we know which Congress member- and according to what source? (Ideally it would be the Congress person themselves).

Where do we get the "...may" from? Lots of things might have been presented by any given Congress member to the proceedings, but (to me at the moment) it all seems a bit hearsay.
 
Back
Top